Why the "ATP" or "Type-3" Forehand Doesn't Work for Kids
Debunking YouTube Clips
The Type-3 swing is an “optimized version of the forehand groundstroke,” first proposed by Dr. Brian Gordon. This forehand model has several distinct characteristics, which Dr. Gordon refers to as “pillars,” and has the stated goal of creating a “heavy ball;” one with maximal speed and spin.
In recent years, I have seen this model taught to young children (which I use here to refer to players ages 10 and under). I question the decision to do so, and in this article I will examine the four pillars of the Type-3 swing, and discuss why each may be suboptimal for kids.
Throughout this piece, I will frequently reference Elliott, Machar, Reid, and Crespo’s Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production, an ITF publication on technical development. Based on their body of work, I consider the authors of this book to be the best source on tennis biomechanics.
Pillar #1
The body motions that cause the racket to move forward (torso rotation and non-twisting shoulder rotation) are different from those that cause the racket to move vertically (shoulder rotation). For this to be possible, the arm must be relatively straight (165-180* bend at elbow).
Why this doesn’t work for kids: As discussed in my “Explaining the Little-Kid Forehand” article, children have difficulty not only with internal shoulder rotation, but also with the straight arm forehand. From that article:
Because generating heavy topspin requires internal shoulder rotation, and because children are better at creating horizontal rotational force (around the midline) than vertical, it is recommended that young players “should avoid attempting to hit with very high levels of topspin until their trunk can be activated and their bodies are sufficiently mature to withstand the shoulder loads associated with the upward racket movement” (Elliott et al., p. 97).
Elliott et al., in their book Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production, recommend that smaller players “reduce their effective upper limb and racket lever length to enhance their ability to rotate” (p. 50). Doing so reduces the moment of inertia to levels manageable for a young child. As players grow, the arm/racket lever can be lengthened by straightening the arm; however, recall that many (if not most) top players have bent elbows during their forehand groundstrokes.
And from Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production:
The biomotor and developmental literature points to it being more natural to develop horizontal propulsion prior to vertical propulsion (Phillipaerts et al., 2006). In groundstrokes, it's presumably more implicit for children to build forward speed of the racket, prior to then engaging the more upwards body movement needed to hit with 'heavy' topspin (p. 45).
Pre-puberty, the emphasis should be on correct stroke production with the corresponding increases in limb lengths (higher moment of inertia) being matched by an increase in strength post-puberty. Higher levels of rotation may then be emphasized post-puberty, where there is sufficient strength to drive the angular rotation of the longer levers (Eliott et al., p. 50).
Pillar #2
The arm must be accelerated through a specific sequence of body rotations (hip > shoulder > arm).
Why this doesn’t work for kids:
This pillar is likely the most achievable for young players; however, it still presents some potential issues.
Firstly, although the pillar requires the use of the hips and trunk (and in a specific order), Elliott et al. recommend that “very young players should be encouraged to develop rhythm in the racket arm, without concern for contributions from the legs and trunk” (p. 100). Secondly, even when they do use their hips and trunk, children may have difficulty creating the separation angles necessary for this pillar to function, and are more likely to rotate as a “unit” than in the listed sequence.
As players develop their strokes, they use more joints, more movements at a single joint (e.g., shoulder internal rotation and horizontal flexion) and greater range of motion (e.g., improved range of shoulder external rotation) to generate racket speed.
For instance, having a shoulder alignment rotation greater than the hip alignment rotation (creation of a separation angle) during the backswing may not be a priority in early skill development of the forehand, yet it is clearly an integral feature of the fully developed stroke (p. 34).
Pillar #3
The hand path during the forward swing is relatively linear, requiring the hand to be to the hitting side of the body at the end of the backswing.
Why this doesn’t work for kids: Imagine two planes at an airport. One plane has a very powerful engine that can accelerate quickly, and the other does not. If the runway is very short, which plane is more likely to take off?
(I actually don’t know if this is how planes work, but I hope the point is made regardless.)
In this metaphor, the first plane is an adult—it has the more powerful “engine” (musculature), and is able to use a shorter “runway” (takeback). In contrast, a child requires a longer takeback in order to overcome the racket’s inertia, which often takes the form of a larger looped backswing where the racket travels behind the body.
Interestingly, the coaches who I see bent on teaching kids the Type-3 swing also require them to use full-size rackets (i.e., 27”) and adult balls. My thought is that if coaches did want to see this sort of shorter backswing, linear swingpath, and straight-arm configuration, it would follow to reduce the swingweight and mass of the racket, or the force-production demands of the game.
Pillar #4
There is an efficient transition from external shoulder rotation to internal shoulder rotation. This requires the hand to be positioned slightly to the outside of the body, with the head of the racket to the outside of the hand. On the forward swing, the mass of the racket causes it to flip, and therefore externally rotate the arm. The shoulder then internally rotates to create vertical racket movement (the “stretch-shorten cycle”).
Why this doesn’t work for kids: As discussed earlier, children struggle to produce internal shoulder rotation at the levels necessary to create a heavy ball. Furthermore, the shorter and more linear backswing is at odds with the child’s need to create momentum through a larger (often looped) takeback. Likewise, as stated in a previous article, young players may not be able to generate the hand speed necessary to create a “flip.”
In the forehand, the rapid rotation forward of the trunk and arm will often cause the wrist to be 'laid-back' thus increasing the angular displacement of the racket and placing specific muscles on stretch. You may not see this hand position if the stroke lacks this rapid rotation of the trunk and arm segments (Elliott, Machar, Reid, and Crespo, Technique Development in Tennis Stroke Production, 2009, p. 45).
Anecdotal Evidence & Conclusion
Perhaps the most telling evidence that a Type-3 swing is not a priority in <10 player development is the simple fact that none of the top pros that I’ve examined used one as kids. Even Roger Federer, the poster boy for the Type-3 swing, had a forehand more in-line with the “Little Kid Forehand Model” as a child (so did Taylor Fritz, Jannick Sinner, and Novak Djokovic, for that matter).
Is it possible to teach a child the Type-3 swing? Probably. Is it worthwhile? In my opinion, no.
For further discussion on this topic:
And, as a parting shot, does a child even need a heavy ball?
As racket speed has not been shown to discriminate between the ranking performance of young players (Mantis et al. 1998), other skills involved in manipulating the racket's trajectory...also assume high importance in player development (p. 43).